Don't Touch My Junk

[HazelGod]

I wouldn't say it's a case of me having reached a tipping point with the TSA procedures, as that connotes some arbitrary, subjective threshold of tolerance set in my own mind has been exceeded.

Yes, I agree that a line has been crossed, but it's one based on an objective standard that derives from the 4th Amendment and associated jurisprudence, particularly Terry v. Ohio and the more recent Hiibel v. Nevada. While previous measures were somewhat onerous and silly, I would not term them invasive...and even given their theatrical nature, I wouldn't deem them wholly unreasonable, at least not in the months immediately following 9/11. The fact that there's been absolutely zero relaxation in the ensuing 9 years, however, is a bit ridiculous.

The libertarian in me balks at the notion of sacrificing these important societal freedoms for any cause, and demands a rigorous cost/benefit analysis before even entertaining the notion. In this case, such is a complete failure...we have one of the most essential liberties enumerated in our Bill of Rights being disregarded with no benefit in return, because these machines and searches DO NOT provide any degree of safety above what was already in place:

They can’t detect explosives in the form of a fine powder like that used in the attempted bombing of Flight 253. Neither the backscatter x-ray or MMW [millimeter wave] scanner could have detected the “Panty Bomber’s” explosive in the airport.

Do you know what would have detected it? Existing screening technologies: a canine nose. A puffer scan.

This new crap is simply more theater, intended to further the appearance of actively improving safety by appealing to the idiot mentality so prevalent in our society: "We're being forced to make a change or sacrifice, so that must mean we're safer."

The fact of the matter is that it just ain't so.

 

[midlifebear]

If you've ever traveled to Israel and especially on El Al airlines you know that super duper electronic screening doesn't work. They do a cursory wand scan, but more importantly the screeners openly engage each ticket holder in mostly friendly conversation -- at length. Their security folks are similar to keenly train psychologists who can interpret the motives, personal issues, and motivations of all travelers -- and their security record is A+.

Considering the ineptness I see and am subjected to every time I leave or enter the USA it's obvious that pure dumb luck has more to do with preventing terrorist threats than any screening techniques employed by the TSA.

 

[maxcok]

There are now at least five separate threads on this topic - this one, one in Et Cetera, one in Underwear and Appearance, one in Show Off, and one inexplicably in Sex with a Large Penis. Surely some of these could be merged? Rather than rewriting and repeating myself, I'm just going to pull my post from the Et Cetera thread. To put it in context, I'm responding to another poster who wondered how the TSA would thwart a terrorist who shoved a bomb up their ass:

Which is precisely how drug smugglers move contraband all the time. Which just shows how many holes there are in the system, what a slippery slope we've been on since 9/11, and how there's no end to it. Take off your shoes, take off your belt, subject yourself to radiation and get felt up head to toe, give up your letter opener, give up your lotions, give up your water bottles, give up your right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, and on and on and on . . . .

These new "security procedures" keep escalating in response to every new bombing 'attempt' and the public willingly accepts them. Not because it makes them safer, but because it makes them "feel" safer. A determined terrorist will find a way, up the ass, down in the cargo hold, by any means necessary. Meanwhile they have us wasting our time and money, trying to figure out what's next, dancing like monkeys, spitting at each other, and living in terror, which means they've already accomplished their real goal. Can't wait for the full on strip searches, cavity checks, and the MRI machines to show up. :rolleyes2:

My suggestion: Everybody refuse the scanner out of health concerns and insist on the pat down. See how that gums up the works and brings it all to a grinding halt. Maybe that will cause the 'authorities' to rethink.

My other suggestion: We start focusing on making friends in the Muslim world (and here at home). Lift people up out of poverty and ignorance, so they aren't dependent on charity from extremist religious organizations to survive, aren't susceptible to radical fundamentalist religious doctrine, and aren't compelled to kill people who are different. It seems to me that a War on Poverty and Ignorance has a much better chance of success than a War on Terrorism, which is unwinnable. Probably cheaper too, and not so aggravating and humiliating for us.

It's now all over the media about the scanners, the "advanced pat-downs" and so on, so surely anyone wishing to do something they shouldn't will know this and plan accordingly?

If anything, all they're doing is making a bunch of people feel safer because they're going through the motions, and maybe delay any attacks by a few weeks while they come up with a new plan?

Yes they should have security in place, yes it should make things harder, but there comes a point where they're really just beefing things up for the sake of making it feel like they're doing something.

This is a terrorist victory, no two ways about it. The cumulative cost of all this security must be more than the cost of the actual explosions in the US. How many billions so far have been spent on securty? Or how many trillions? And you think people should not be angry about this?

Emphasis added, Max.

Just listened to a an interview with TSA director John Pistole on NPR's call-in show Talk of the Nation where he hemmed and hawed, defending the policy with all the expected rhetoric. Among other questions, he was pressed by callers to answer how effective it was to keep designing ever more draconian security measures as a reactive response to past attempts vs. taking a global approach, focusing on intelligence gathering and profiling, addressing the many security holes in the system, and anticipating what avenues would-be terrorists might exploit in the future. Not surprisingly, he pretty much dodged those sorts of questions and returned to the same justifications for the scanners and the pat downs and how (paraphrasing) 'we're all in this together'.

New TSA Screenings Raise Travelers' Hackles - NPR​

This just in: An organized protest movement has developed called 'National Opt-Out Day' calling on passengers to refuse the scanners on November 24, the day before Thanksgiving and the busiest travel day of the year. It could be a huge mess and has the potential to be a tipping point in the "War on Terror". Or the TSA might decide to back down just that one day, waving people through and taking the steam out of the protest. Of course, if there's a bomb plot that day, successful or not, it could change the equation too.

Airport scanners: Will you join National Opt-Out Day?​

optoutday.com and flywithdignity.org.​

 

[Mensch1351]

Every bridge should have a TSA checkpoint on it inspecting all the cars, because you never know when a terrorist might set off a VBIED on a bridge.

Precisely...........I haven't made up my mind on all this TSA stuff -- however...............planes became our only obsession after 9/11. If terrorists want to do irrational damage to Americans I can MORE imagine someone on a cold winter's Sunday in a particularly heavy coat wandering into St. Patrick's in NY with a body bomb attached and during Mass blowing the whole place and themselves to smithereens!!

I can imagine a 1,500 mile stretch of railroad bridges and ties where trains carrying highly flamable liquids and other dangerous materials never being checked..................boooooooom. (especially in a highly populated area!)

And for the REALLY paranoid -- I can imagine a nut simply flushing down their toilet some God-awful disease laden vial of whatever shit scientists come up with weekly in their labs...........well -- you imagine the consequences. So if we feel better about scanning our bods and shoes and teeth and butts and whatever else we need to simply to "fly safe" so be it!

If the terrorists REALLY want to raise the paranoia level of a free American society............planes are only a smidgeon of our vulnerability!

 

[B_New End]

If terrorists want to do irrational damage to Americans I can MORE imagine someone on a cold winter's Sunday in a particularly heavy coat wandering into St. Patrick's in NY with a body bomb attached and during Mass blowing the whole place and themselves to smithereens!!

Naked body scanners in front of churches are more than a precaution, they are a front line defense against terrorism.

And for the REALLY paranoid -- I can imagine a nut simply flushing down their toilet some God-awful disease laden vial of whatever shit scientists come up with weekly in their labs...........well -- you imagine the consequences.

Oh God!!! We must install security cameras in every bathroom in America! Think of what could happen to the children that would drink contaminated water!!! Entire cities could be wiped out. Your privacy while wiping yuor ass does not trump national security, and if you got nothing to hide, why would you object?

 

[NumberTwentySix]

What if we acknowledge that this -->

is either;

1. A brilliant example of blind justice and all that's best in America, or,
2. Completely fucking absurd.

I vote for #2. A Catholic nun (who looks to be in her mid eighties) in a habit being frisked by a Muslim security agent in a hijab because the nun might be a threat to airline security is nuts. It is so completely batshit insane, I can't stand it. I usually am up for debating anything, but this is indefensible, and anyone who thinks otherwise is so blinkered as to not be trusted with sharp objects or motor vehicles.

Also, the photographer is really pissed that the Drudge Report took his shot without attribution a few days ago. I would be too.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm very surprised at your response here, VB...it's very unlike you to discount concerns of a health risk to the broader population because you personally might not be affected. I'm accustomed to seeing you reason from the viewpoint of the bigger picture.

Your second comment also surprises me in that it comes from a fallacy of equivalence by ignorance. Comparing the relatively benign RF radiation emitted by telecommunications devices to the high-energy ionizing radiation emitted by active imaging scanners is akin to comparing the flow from your kitchen tap with that of Niagara falls.

My comment was put together rather whimsically, but there really is a reason why I feel this way. All of this talk about the full body scanners made me do a bit of research on the radiation levels that emit from it since that is one of the biggest concerns surrounding the new devices. Many of the articles that I've found state that the amount of radiation a person is exposed to is rather low. One article in particular goes into more detail: These full-body scanners fall into two main categories: millimeter wave and backscatter. The first directs radio waves over a body and measures the energy reflected back to render a 3D image. The latter is a low-level X-ray machine that creates 2D images. The scanners are supposed to be the high-tech (and energy-inefficient) version of a pat down, and can detect items such as nonmetallic weapons and explosives not picked up by metal detectors. (They only scan surfaces, so body cavity stashing may soon get all the more popular.) Millimeter wave scanners produce 30 to 300 gigahertz electromagnetic waves, and reveal explosives if they are denser than other materials. This means that these scanners emit less radiation than a typical cell phone, according to TSA. Whether cell phones are harmful is of course the topic of many debates. The backscatter machines, meanwhile, are low-level X-ray machines that expose bodies to as much radiation as about two minutes of flying in an airplane does. In other words, if you already use a cell phone and you already fly, you are already exposing your body to more radiation than these scanners will. - Can full-body airport scanners harm you? | Health Tech - CNET News

Since the millimeter wave version of the full body scanner looks to be more of an issue than the other and the claims are that it emits less radiation of a typical cell phone, I found a story in regard to cell phone radiation to provide additional numbers to crunch - How Much Radiation Does Your Phone Emit? - NYTimes.com

Of course, all of this info we take with a grain of salt. Who knows if any of these numbers have been futzed with in any shape or form? But if there is any truth to the measurements I'm sure I'd be exposed to more radiation through my cell phone and various other geek-level tech gadgets than a scanner I would use (at most) 5 or 6 times a year. Now when I get that two year long world tour and have to go through a body scanner every other day then I'll double check to make sure I'm not growing a third breast. :wink:

And as for the groping by the TSA? Seriously, I've seen people grabbed and handled worse at Club Pacha in New York City. But not to get sidetracked about the hot security guard that was embarrassed when he realized I wasn't stuffing my shorts... John Tyner is kinda screwed either way he looks at it. First off, recording devices at security checkpoints are prohibited. That means if he really wanted to press charges he was already breaking the law when he recorded his incident on his cell phone. That doesn't fare well for his case already. TSA: Laptop Bags: Industry Process and Guidelines

Secondly, TSA wouldn't be in the vicinity of touching his junk if he just went through the machine. However, if it really came down to it any TSA person can grope me if they needed to but that's only because I'm a whore. :biggrin1:

But I digress... if his issue was about the photography, all the images I've found online thus far from full body scanners indicate that there's no graphic or detailed images taken or used. I even heard Ron Paul talking on Congress about machines taking pictures of their genitals as if to imply that the images were on par with the stuff we see here on LPSG. Forgetting that people did that at Abu Ghraib to war prisoners and were sent to jail. Why anyone would think the TSA would be exonerated from the same rules boggles my mind.

I don't see what the TSA is doing as any invasion of my privacy or some form of threat against my freedom. Just like Immigration & Customs, getting through these checkpoints would be minimal and painless if people just did what they were supposed to do in the first place and not make a scene. I doubt that any person stuck in these painfully, unthankful jobs really are interested in secretly conducting a penile survey. Nor are they secretly masturbating to them in a back hall of the airport. Health risks seem to be low at this point and it does have the ability to speed up the process. Plus, I don't have to dress like a poor hobo or engage in a partial strip tease of metal beforehand in order to go through it.

Again, I don't see the problem with it but that's just me.

 

[NumberTwentySix]

Vinyl, you have a point about the radiation. Although we can't be entirely certain the numbers are clean, it seems likely that somewhere in the development of these machines, the people doing the testing would have noticed if they emitted gamma rays or something. From my point of view it's more about the TSA forever ratcheting up security, banning this, scanning that, patting down the other. I ask; When is there enough security that any further increase has diminishing returns, or is just downright silly? Right now, I feel like we've reached that point, and I would like to see it scaled back. See our resources put toward intervention and behavioral detection rather than making sure X amount of liquid or metal doesn't get on the plane.

 

[haulthat]

I think that he more than likely did it for the sake of making a statement. I don't disagree with his point though. There are effective ways to get the job done without groping, or full body scans that show off what your packin. The question should not be should we reduce our security measures, or should you sacrifice your rights? The question should be why aren't they using methods that are equally as effective that don't cause those types of issues. I hate that so many people and so many elected officials argue for or against rather than looking for an alternative solution that could effectively resolve both issues.
One thing I agree completely with is yes, you have the option to not fly. In the end that is what happened, he did not get to fly. I think if anything this will make more people weigh that decision a little more before they decide to fly. Not everyone travels regularly. Sometimes you make plans and don't realize you will run into shit like this before you go. When I purchased tickets the last time I flew, it asked how many bags I would bring while I was purchasing the tickets. When I got to the airport they charged me for both of those bags. When I came back home they charged me for both of them again. I don't like the fees, but I know that you can choose to either fly or not fly. I think its a fair argument though that anything like fees that you will certainly have to pay unless you want to leave your bags at the airport and have a friend pick them up, or go through scanners or body searches that would naturally make some people uncomfortable that should be made clear up front before the ticket is purchased.
When you sign a lease for an apartment there is a fat book of pages. You have to sign specific lines on like 10 different pages that say I agree to these terms and have read them. Even that leaves room for information to get lost in the fine print, but things like plane tickets often don't even do that much. Shit needs to be made better. If you have to go through a special line that takes more time and is a pain in the ass, where as everyone else who is cool with the scans can go through quicker fine. There needs to be options though.

TYNER is such a whiny pussy and most likely did this solely to instigate shit and cause this very thing !

I used to fly all the time but due to family matters I have not flown since June 2007. I have no problem going through whatever procedure they need to do if I am allowed to continue to breathe, to see my family and loved ones and go for runs with my beloved animals. The continuation of my life is tantamount to ANY possibly invasive procedure the TSA needs to do!
If you don't like the procedures. don't fukin fly, rent a damn car , take a train, hitch-hike, whatever you need to feel safe but STFU for the sane ones who understand the level of craziness in the world today and how creative our enemies have become.

Hell, if you need to strip me in front of everyone, pull on my junk and even do a cavity search (with a sterile glove) DO IT. As long as I can fly to where I want to go with the knowledge that I am safe from terrorism and can live to see another day DO IT !!!


~HH~

P.S. How fukin petty do you think the souls that paid with their lives on 9/11 when the planes crashed into the Twin towers and a field in PA think TYNER and others like him are ?
Would they trade a groping to be alive and hug and kiss their loved ones again ? *Food4Thought*

P.P.S Once when I flew to STL I accidentally left on a HUGE METAL donut cock ring and I went through the metal scanner, NOTHING....Even I had forgotten I had the damn thing on until I went to the bathroom and went to piss and said OHH SHIT! .
When flying back I almost went through again with it on but remembered I had it on at the last minute and got out of line and went to the bathroom to remove it and put it in my carry on LOL !

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I think that he more than likely did it for the sake of making a statement. I don't disagree with his point though. There are effective ways to get the job done without groping, or full body scans that show off what your packin.

If you can tell how someone's packing based off the types of photos the machine takes, then you have better x-ray vision than Superman.

The question should not be should we reduce our security measures, or should you sacrifice your rights? The question should be why aren't they using methods that are equally as effective that don't cause those types of issues. I hate that so many people and so many elected officials argue for or against rather than looking for an alternative solution that could effectively resolve both issues.

Even without full body scanners or the more aggressive frisks, there are still plenty of people who complain about the way the TSA handles things. Even though we all know you have to take off metals such as jewelry before going through the metal detector, many times you get to the front of the line and there's someone whining and complaining about why they have to take off their ring or necklace or someone who acts as if they have removed everything and still sets off the alarm. Others have electronics in their bags bigger than the allowed size and not in a TSA approved carry on and forget to take it out. Then they complain when the bag either has to be emptied or brought forth for additional screening. IMO, the argument about "sacrificing rights" is a fruitless one because people are forever going to complain about their supposed loss of "freedoms" or "privacy" regardless of what the TSA does. In some cases, they are also the ones expecting to get through because they don't "look like a threat", as if being a security risk has an established look or type to begin with.

One thing I agree completely with is yes, you have the option to not fly. In the end that is what happened, he did not get to fly. I think if anything this will make more people weigh that decision a little more before they decide to fly.

Kinda makes it difficult when you're going overseas. :wink:
Then again, there's always a Trans-Atlantic cruise... which ironically puts people through a similar security procedure to board the ship. It wouldn't surprise me if they started using full body scanners either.

Sometimes you make plans and don't realize you will run into shit like this before you go. When I purchased tickets the last time I flew, it asked how many bags I would bring while I was purchasing the tickets. When I got to the airport they charged me for both of those bags. When I came back home they charged me for both of them again. I don't like the fees, but I know that you can choose to either fly or not fly.

Most things regarding baggage fees can be found out before you get to the airport these days. Anyone traveling owes it to themselves to go to the websites of the airlines they're using and see what their policies are for such things. Weight requirements, the amount of carry-on luggage, etc... I've seen people royally screwed traveling with too much baggage on these fees. And there's still plenty of ways to avoid them if you use the right airline that doesn't charge as much or are part of frequent flyer programs that allow their customers free baggage check-in. If anything, packing lighter and traveling with only your necessities makes it easier to deal with. Or you can not fly, which works if you're not going too far. From New York, I would never fly to Boston or Washington DC. It's only four hours away and the train is much more comfortable (with less security drama). I've even done the 12 hour train ride from NYC to Montreal a few times (which is WONDERFUL during the Fall season). Alas, I wouldn't be doing that if I was going to Brazil.

If you have to go through a special line that takes more time and is a pain in the ass, where as everyone else who is cool with the scans can go through quicker fine. There needs to be options though.

But that is the option. You either cooperate with the procedure they establish to make it as fast and thorough as possible, or you go through the more rigorous check where it really is a pain in the ass. They're not going to make a third option where people who don't comply with a scan or a frisk to get on a plane based on their looks and personality.

 

[NumberTwentySix]

If less invasive measures accomplish the same goal, great. But the argument has got to be made from the position of why the TSA must infringe on a particular right, and present a thorough cost/benefit analysis thereof. It can not start from the premise that I am being allowed to keep certain rights even though doing so interferes with the TSA's policies.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Now some people are talking about hiring private security companies to take control of airline security gates. Memo to media: Private screening companies won't save you from pat downs | Media Matters for America

Jeez... is that their answer for everything? Give control to every government provided program to a "private entity" so they can not only do whatever they please (socially ethical or not) and secretly profit from them on the side? Besides, that wouldn't solve the problems of the "bad touch" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it could make matters even worse if the private company established a set of guidelines that were more discriminative than ones upheld by the current TSA. All this unnecessary drama when everyone should just use the new scanner and avoid having your jewels manhandled to begin with.

 

[deleted3782]

I think these pat-downs will be modified in some way...it violates the Fourth Amendment assurances against unreasonable search and seizure. Already it seems the pilots have been let off the hook, attendants will probably be next, followed by politicians, military, folks with medical attachments, etc.

I also think there is good chance the US will begin profiling of passengers as an alternative to physical examination. This might be as simple as waiving frequent fliers who have no background flags, or it could be much more invasive, including financial and travel backgrounds to profile individuals that might not be likely candidates for terrorism. Whenever that happens, there will be push-back from the public on that as well.

Whatever happens, I have no doubt the terrorists are having a great laugh that everyone from nuns and CEOs to kids and grandparents are now going through all these hoops due to their actions. They wanted to be disruptive...and it worked perfectly.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I also think there is good chance the US will begin profiling of passengers as an alternative to physical examination. This might be as simple as waiving frequent fliers who have no background flags, or it could be much more invasive, including financial and travel backgrounds to profile individuals that might not be likely candidates for terrorism. Whenever that happens, there will be push-back from the public on that as well.

Profiling... gr-r-r-r-eeeeeeat! Now everywhere will feel like the corridors of the neighborhood mall. Let me memorize my old teenage script. "No, officer, I am not shoplifting. I live in town, that's why you always see me here. I didn't know wearing baggy jeans and a hooded sweatshirt was grounds for suspicion. Yes, I know we all look alike. Here's the sales receipts. Can I go now? Mammy don't like it when anyone's late for fried chicken night."

Not saying that about you, of course, however, the concept of "profiling" has been going on for some people since birth. I really thought our nation was past all of this.

 

[deleted3782]

Not saying that about you, of course, however...

Ya, I know. :wink: I am hearing a lot about profiling though...especially the fact that somewhere between guys with explosive underwear and grandmothers with walkers is the separation between those who need to be frisked/searched and those who might not. How does our society determine where that line gets drawn? Right now, the line is drawn to include grandma...but is that really the best use of our resources? I doubt racial profiling will be used...because race alone isn't the best indicator of terrorism...but it might include economic, age, gender, geopolitical, or workplace profiling (or even something more bizarre than my little brain can even dream up on a Friday night).

 

[nudeyorker]

Ya, I know. :wink: I am hearing a lot about profiling though...especially the fact that somewhere between guys with explosive underwear and grandmothers with walkers is the separation between those who need to be frisked/searched and those who might not. How does our society determine where that line gets drawn? Right now, the line is drawn to include grandma...but is that really the best use of our resources? I doubt racial profiling will be used...because race alone isn't the best indicator of terrorism...but it might include economic, age, gender, geopolitical, or workplace profiling (or even something more bizarre than my little brain can even dream up on a Friday night).

So should we search the guy pictured in the photograph on the left or the guy pretending to be old on the right. Do we not search the woman pretending to be a nun in the hypothetical nonsense this issue has brought up?
Sorry I'm going back to my first response to this issue... If you don't want to deal with this don't fly!
Exclusive: Man in disguise boards international flight - CNN

 

[NumberTwentySix]

How about we just profile affluent young men from middle eastern and north-African countries that speak arabic, farsi/dari, urdu, pashtu, or one of the turkic languages, that have a past history of sympathy toward, or affiliation with, radical Islam? Can I say that without getting flamed? We'll see.

 

[dandelion]

still cant help thinking that with the cost/benefit analysis of all this the significant benefits are political gains by one party or another which claim to be protecting the public and the costs are expense to the public purse and personal inconvenience (which while small individually are vast in total). there are obvious ways for the US to avoid being a terrorist target which mostly amount to stop interfering in others affairs.

 

[deleted213967]

If you touch my junk, I may fart.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

How about we just profile affluent young men from middle eastern and north-African countries that speak arabic, farsi/dari, urdu, pashtu, or one of the turkic languages, that have a past history of sympathy toward, or affiliation with, radical Islam? Can I say that without getting flamed? We'll see.

Well, you could do that. But considering that many "non-brown" people are also arrested for terrorism, limiting your profiling to just young men from the Middle East and Northern Africa who speak a foreign language wouldn't get the job done effectively. What about the radical non-Islamic people who conduct domestic terrorism on our shores? A few of them bomb mosques and seek out to kill abortion doctors. One even drove a plane into a federal building a few years ago as a "political statement" against taxes. Will they be profiled too?

That's essentially the problem with the concept. There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule that nobody would care to pay attention to. Your scenario would pay too much attention to one particular group of people and lay a blind eye on others. That's just asking for trouble. Perhaps if our world looked at the issue of airline security and counterterrorism from an individual point of view and not a physical characteristic, we'd be more effective?